Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Police Bail and the Innocent.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on October 15, 2014

Cautious steps from the Home Secretary, Theresa May. She has ‘asked’ the College of Policing to ‘consider’ implementing a time limit on the length of time a suspect is allowed to be held on police bail in England and Wales.

One hopes she is actually referring to the total ‘spread’ of time during which the ’24 hour rule’ contained within PACE can be activated.

The ’24 hours rule’ was sold to us as a protection for suspects – they couldn’t be held at the police station for longer than 24 hours – but it has been turned into an instrument of control; there is nothing in the PACE regulations which stipulates how long ‘police bail’ can last, nor how many interviews the 24 hour PACE clock can contain. It could be 24 visits to the police station for one hour interviews, or indeed 48 visits for half hour interviews.

Now Paul Gambaccini has joined the long list of Yewtree suspects who have endured a year and more of innuendo, speculation, in some cases estrangement from their children, intense pressure on their families and marriages, an inability to earn a living in their previous career – and forced to sell houses and investments in order to fund their defence. The best they can hope for at the end of all that – as innocent men and women – is a mealy mouthed announcement from the Crown Prosecution Service that:

‘there is insufficient evidence to prosecute in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by two males believed to be aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending.’

Even when they can’t build a fire – they like to puff a little smoke in your direction as a parting shot.

The judicial system has long been weighted against the innocent. In prison, those who appeal against their conviction because they are innocent – shall we take the unfortunate Sally Clark as an example, to take this out of the realms of ‘all men are guilty’ and the ‘jury has spoken therefore they are guilty’ – find that they are further penalised, above and beyond those who are genuinely guilty and accept that they are.

The prison service’s Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) system, initiated last November, means that maintaining your innocence can result in effective solitary confinement for up to 23 hours day, seven days a week – in addition to no personal clothing; no rented TV; hardly any possessions; virtually no access to money to buy telephone credit or stamps; limited opportunities to exercise, to phone family or even take a shower.

Sally Clark endured 3 years of this before she was able to prove her innocence – at which point she was booted out the door with usually an hour’s notice. No aftercare, no probation officer, no support system in place for those who have had the temerity to prove their innocence. Victor Nealon spent 17 years proving his innocence – he left prison with just £46 in his pocket and a lifetime of relationships and friendships irretrievably broken. Protesting his innocence of a rape charge – which DNA finally showed he was innocent of – had meant he had never been eligible for parole.

Obviously all allegations of sexual abuse need to be carefully investigated; equally obviously it is a slow and painstaking operation. Obviously, there needs to be a system of rewards for prisoners who address their crimes honestly and work at their rehabilitation.

Those two factors don’t need to result in such severe penalties for those who are innocent. The problem for the first group of ‘innocents’, those who have never even been charged, is that because they have not been charged, newspapers are free to speculate – and invite comments – on the nature of the ‘possible’ charges, choosing their words cleverly to ensure the worst possible connotation is taken from their articles.

It is argued that publication of investigation into an individual allows other ‘victims’ to come forward. So, why not publication – as in the form of the ‘court circular‘ which seems perfectly capable of allowing those interested in the movements of the Royal family to know their whereabouts and get themselves to the same place if they are interested – that would be a world away from the free-for-all ‘click bait’ which the newspapers currently indulge in.

It is a premature, and in many cases, totally unfair, form of punishment of innocent individuals.

Those who are charged, and have to spend hundreds of thousands on their defence, most certainly should be repaid their defence costs – it is completely unfair that a person’s life savings can be wiped out by one allegation without foundation.

Those who manage to prove their innocence from prison, should have a system of support – they are more, not less, deserving of support than those who are guilty of crimes. Nor should rewarding prisoners for good behaviour have to penalise those who are innocent.

The current ‘habit’ of the CPS of blowing a little smoke into the rumours surrounding those who have been released without charge, should be stopped immediately – it is quite unnecessary, and is merely PR on the part of an embattled CPS.

None of this in any way prevents the investigation of what may be horrendous crimes, nor should it. There is a lot that Theresa May could do to ensure a justice system that contains some justice for the innocent – she, and the government can move extremely fast when they are minded to.

‘Asking’ the College of Policing to ‘consider’ implementing a time limit on the length of time a suspect is allowed to be held on police bail doesn’t even scratch the surface of all that is wrong at the moment.

Let’s not forget those who were not arrested and bailed, but still had to wait a very long time for a decision. One of the ladies in my group was not arrested or bailed, but she waited nearly 22 months after her “voluntary” interview with the police, before being NFA’d. She had a breakdown during that time, partly due to the wait and partly due to the fact that she could not work doing her ‘proper’ job (she works with vulnerable people) during that time. She did end up doing some form of office work with about half the hours she was used to working – hence her salary was a fraction of what it should have been. She then was unable to work due to her breakdown for some months – so no income.

She still is suffering from the breakdown, now has a serious speech impediment and severe depression and anxiety issues. The traumatic results of being falsely accused do not suddenly stop at NFA or at the prison gates when a wrongly convicted person is released. As we know, many NFAs are resurrected years later so some people have to go through the trauma over and again……

Absolutely, and the cost of investigating historic he said she said crimes needs to be looked at, is this truly good use of public funds? In the media this week they were talking about the spiralling cost of online fraud , with not that much being done about it, I rather see police spend there time on this than investigating some ageing celeb who is supposed to have grabbed some birds boob 20 years ago. Plenty of time for this investigation but no time to investigate Blair’s war which so many British and Iraqi lives either

Aged 14 Youngest Useless Object spent over 6 months on police bail waiting to hear whether or not he would be charged with rape (he lost his cherry to a drunken 17 year old serial rape-alligatoress). That 6 months not only nearly destroyed him mentally and emotionally but us, his family too. He was fortunate that everyone in the neighborhood /school supported him – if they had ostracized him I really think he would have topped himself.

Even the DS assigned to his case was at his wits end trying to get a decision out of the CPS.

Even when they can’t build a fire – they like to puff a little smoke in your direction as a parting shot. Hehe, nice description. The use of “allegations” and “alleged” doesn’t really make up for the “believed to be aged between”.

OK, but you can play them at their own game, all the villains do after all: Say nothing, NOTHING, without a solicitor present. Give no voluntary info, no help or cooperation and do not’accompany them to the station’. The response is “am I under arrest” “are you detaining me” “SOLICITOR” NO Comment to any question or allegation, the burden of proof is on them not you. After the VERY FIRST question, in the presense of your SOLICITOR, you ask “am I under arrest? Otherwise, I am going home” They then have to decide to keep you for the 36 hours or let you go. DO NOT accept police bail, they either charge you or release you, you can only make yourself subject to their whims, they can’t do it to you. If you get stuck in a cell, be as much of a pain as possible, ask for a doctor “I feel unwell” Myself I carry my heart medicine at all times, get yourself a useful ailment. Demand tea! Do not be impolite to the regular coppers or custody sergeant, this isn’t their fault, but make it clear you have no intent to roll over. No ‘little chats’ at three in the morning “Where’s my SOLICITOR” The preceding was hard learned but also came mostly as the advice of a copper.

THIS! I learnt the above the hard way. Last time I was arrested the Custody Desk went into melt down when they saw the 20 or so different medications I habitually carry (but they duly counted every single tablet in every single strip)…and my answer to the question about ‘dietary needs’ meant they got to choose between only holding me for a couple of hours or sending someone out , in the depths of rural norfolkshire, to find an all night garage that sold fresh produce.

Thing is though, my one caveat to Bob The Biker’s sound advice, a lot of Police stations now use a separate ‘Custody Suite’ run by Group Flaw or whatever they are now called. Try getting a cup of tea or a smoke break out of their guy at the desk….and you have to be writhing on the floor of the cell , foaming at the mouth and other orifices, before they will call a doctor.

I was fortunate in that the only time I was ever arrested, I was taken to the cop-shop by an old-school copper – and by that, I don’t mean Inspector Regan, more PC Dixon; he didn’t treat me as ‘an habitual criminal’ ala Norman Stanley Fletcher, but was experienced enough to see it was an act of desperation driven by penury that had resulted in my arrest (i.e. shoplifting). After going through the mug-shot, fingerprint and DNA routines, he gave me a caution and a ride home. The attitude of the younger constables who booked me in wasn’t quite so benevolent, deliberately goading me as I emptied my pockets and saying to themselves in loud voices (with accompanying smirks) ‘Are you sure it’s a fella? Looks more like a woman to me’ and so on, knowing full well any reposte on my part would only extend my time there. I suppose it’s the luck of the draw whose hands you end up in.

La plume de ma tante in your case perhaps Uncle Petunia —-Anna will explain the latent pun in my observation if my French is not totally out of date —A mistake in my post it should have been materteral (matertera being Latin for Auntie) rather than maternal but I always blow every punchline. As to my nom de Guerre Anna it gives away little more than my genuine love of food and the good life and is actually the nick name by which I am known in the trade I now pursue —-and I love political incorrectness inherent in it

As a ex common law hack who they kept chained in the back office and to whom they fed raw meat and was just about intelligent enough to find his way to the Law Courts in the morning and find his way back before lunch either tail in the air if things had gone well or licking his wounds if things had gone badly I can only think that nom de guerre is more appropriate in my case than nom de plume whichever day of the week. I would travel a fair distance to meet you Anna but I am not a million miles from the Sussex Coast …..but the really interesting point you raise is the prospect of finding gourmet food in the culinary desert (save in the odd Michelin starred oasis) that starts outside the confines of the M 25 —I conclude you must be staying with friends though it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if you were savvy enough to have found some hidden culinary gem —–and if you and Mr G are at a loose end it would be an honour to try to provide you with some small gesture of thanks for the many hours of enjoyment I had have had from your blog.

You are fortunate Engineer –if you live in South East England its fur coat and no knickers country coz ones money goes on the mortgage, school fees and instalments on the Range Rover leaving fine dining to be indulged only with clients in town on the expense account hence there is little demand for decent restaurants in my part of the world..

I see your point about the cost of living and it’s reflection on the hospitality industry, but in this part of the world at least it seems that every other pub employs a chef, and of those about half really know what they’re doing (for pubs to survive round here they have to do good food, and not just burgers and chips either; the old boozers where ‘food’ meant a dodgy pork pie and a packet of crisps are long gone). There are food festivals galore, a fine selection of farm shops, and finding good ingredients for a home-made feast is easy, especially with interweb mail order as well. It’s not that the North-West is awash with cash (Wilmslow and Alderley Edge excepted), but the explosion in availability of really fine foods of all types has been spectacular this last couple of decades.

‘…Dave Lee Travis has reportedly been left a broken man financially after his ordeal.’

Um… wasn’t he convicted? He and several other ‘celebrities’ are currently convicted criminals, courtesy of the same Operation. Given the fuore over the (thus far unsubstantiated, so far as I am aware) allegations made against the late Sir James Vincent Savile, who has been turned in life from campaigning fundraiser to a man in death whose gravestone has been removed it is hardly suprising that others have found themselves in the crosshairs. Trial of celebrity by media seems to be in thing.

I make no suggestion as to the correctness of these allegations or whether or not they are appropriate or, indeed fair, but I think that public pressure gave the Metropolitan Police no option but to investigate, which they have done, presumably with full regard to the law in place at the time. PACE 1984 clearly imposes certain restrictions on investigators and, presumably, it is in the interests of both sides that any allegation is investigated fully and the truth of the matter established. The point of announcing that person ‘A’ or ‘B’ has been arrested in connection with allegation ‘C’ is to seek additional evidence/complainants that might bring more light to bear on the original matter, and that was the case in respect of Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and DLT himself.

Unless suspects were granted the same anonymity as accusers there is very little else that can be done when the CPS decide that a case should not proceed against an individual, other than to announce the fact. I agree, however, that the little sting in the tail implicit in that quoted above is unnecessary and mischevious.

It is not ideal and you quote some serious miscarriages of justice, to which I could add the matter of Barry George and many others, but I am not sure what they could replace the current system with that would be fairer to suspects. Perhaps the Home Secretary/College of Policing can come up with something better, we will have to see.

“The point of announcing that person ‘A’ or ‘B’” I have no problem with such an announcement – it is the way in which those announcements are then allowed to turn into entertainment by a media which is fighting its own battles at the moment. Cliff Richard is a classic case – nothing wrong in investigating the allegations against him – everything wrong with leaking that so that it turns into celebrity speculation/entertainment. There are rules surrounding how you discuss after arrest – those rules should be expanded to cover the start of an investigation to both allow publicity for other victims to come forward, and to prevent the worst excesses of the media in speculating. In the same vein, there was nothing wrong with ‘investigative journalism’ door-stepping Brenda Leyland, the ‘McCann troll’ – any evidence should have been handed to the police and followed up – there was everything wrong in turning that doorstepping into ‘public entertainment’ before it was established what crime had been committed. I am well aware that DLT was finally convicted on one charge – which is why I carefully chose the word ‘ordeal’ to cover the lengthy period during which he was treated as entertainment whilst proving himself innocent of another 14 charges. Sally Clark was ‘convicted’ too, and the Birmingham Six or was it Four?

* I think that public pressure gave the Metropolitan Police no option but to investigate *

Absolutely untrue. Operation Yewtree was underway before even the TV Show had been broadcast. Within days of the TV Show, Spindler was announcing “We’re coming to get you” and saying dozens of celebrities would be arrested. It was never dozens and most were never charged with anything. It was a police force out of all rational control and in direct cahoots with a media who were already known to have been in the habit of paying police officers for “information”, since 2003 as admitted in parliament. A vipers nest of corruption and diverse motivations. Nothing to do with the rule of law and Reason.

No doubt about it, The Hairy Cornflake was targeted before any of this was made public, before even the publicity for ‘Exposure’ pre-empted this most contrived of ‘scandals’, and they subsequently pulled out all the stops until the ‘got’ him http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/dlt-tko.html

It is the case that his conviction represented a mere 7.5% “success rate” for our friends at the Clown Persecution Service, 1 charge out of 15. Yet they still mete out the cliches about “putting the victim through the ordeal of court”

Wasting your time talking to Frankie. The only way a sanctimonious idiot will ever learn is to have it happen to him. And he will know that all the other complacent Frankie-types who believe whatever crap they are handed will pontificate on blogs about how he must be guilty as charged cos a BRITISH COURT has convicted him.

A long wait indeed for such a valuable contribution… particularly as it is incorrect. A jury has the burden of finding guilt or innocence, not the court.

I dislike the glee with which the press get their belated kick in against the innocent person that will not face prosecution but none of the contributors have thus far come up with a better system, other than perhaps anonymity for all the parties, but that has its drawbacks too.

Innocent people will, inevitably, be found guilty sometimes and I have no solutions to offer for this regrettable state of affairs. A case in point is the case I quoted – that of Barry George. He was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence, partly because he was, in the words of his own barrister the ‘local nutter’. The police were under terrific pressure for a conviction and George was unfortunate enough to present himself as a ready made prime suspect. I can remember at the time being absolutely stunned that he was found guilty, so clearly our system isn’t perfect, but the jury were presented with a set of facts from which they deduced that he was the person responsible.

What other better justice system could there be? The South African one, for example? I think we have all seen enough recently to deduce that this isn’t the way forward either.

* What other better justice system could there be? The South African one, for example? I think we have all seen enough recently to deduce that this isn’t the way forward either. *

Oddly enough, I though the S.African judge got it bang on. From what I had deduced from the mess, the most safest verdict would be Manslaughter, which is exactly what the judge came up with. It certainly was better to see the guy convicted of something rather than getting away with murder as OJ did, all those years ago in front of a jury. I think the S.Africans have this system because they feel their people are not trustworthy enough in the mass to make rational jury decisions and since they cannot have universal suffrage in that regard, they prefer to have none. Some of the recent jury processes here seem to be questionable, with judges throwing jurors off and keeping them at a decision for what seem unprecedented periods of time. I fear the public/political pressures you refer to in the UK are not necessarily confined to the cops, but have spread into the Judiciary as well.

Really? How silly of me to jump to conclusions. Last I heard about that was the British legal system prevaricating about allowing him to go back there to be judged. Perhaps our Court System that is the envy of the world is uncomfortable about the lack of a Jury System over there. I’ll have to do some research. Looked pretty open and shut to me, but it’s important that the human rights of Brits are protected first and foremost I guess. Our law is the envy of the world. Bears repetition.

I was more concerned about his state of mind now and whether he is really fit to stand trial.

As you say, perhaps, from what we know of the evidence there isn’t much doubt (if indeed the facts are to be believed) but unless, as I say he is another Brando then I was quite disgusted to see him deported to stand trial.

I suppose it would be a waste of time pointing out to the execrable Mr Ecks that when one has to resort to ‘ad hominem’ remarks one is generally reckoned to have lost the argument… The whole point of this and other blogs/forums is an exercise in ideas. Some you may agree with, others you will not, but it is surely not the idea to badmouth contributors who may hold or defend an opposing view.

When those contributors are part of the problem, when those contributors are indirect facilitators of the very evils this blog inveighs against, when those contributors can witness show trials and parrot establishment claptrap without one iota of insight or wisdom then rage is the only sane response. The “ideas” that you hold Frankie or have learned in the style of a minah bird are ideas that are helping to undermine all men in this country including you. Although, like the bad driver who leaves chaos in his wake but never hits the wall himself, no doubt you will escape the consequences of your acceptance of the lies you have been fed. On the back of types like you, Frankie, all the evil-doers in the world find their success.

Offensive?. The truth is often offensive. The fact that the human race is mostly composed of those who accept what they are told by their “betters” and have neither the willingness nor the moral fibre to question is offensive. The fact that several old men are likely to die in jail on the basis of accusations that are entirely unproved is offensive and a sign of active danger to all men. Even more offensive is the fact that these injustices have been made at the corrupt and underhanded instigation of the feminist branch of the general evil that is stateism/socialism.

“We” are part of the problem Anna?. Considering the straight choice voters have between scum and more scum that is hardly so. That is what the system offers and always will offer. The real problem is the mass membership of the go-along-to-get-along brigade. Those who won’t think but will swallow. Has Frankie once come on this blog to argue reasons or evidence as to the guilt of those he insists are guilty?. He comes onto a blog where he knows most are trying to look deeper than that and peddles the “no smoke without fire” line . You and Moor Larkin and others have made vast efforts to establish truth. All Frankie does is insist the poor sods now in jail are guilty men—because they’ve been convicted by a jury and so that makes ’em guilty. Can you tell me Anna that is not the attitude on which all injustice rests?.

As for his occupation– Frankie has the tone I’ve heard many times from our monkeysuited and authoritarian friends.

Anyway–it is your blog Anna so your rules–I will undertake to have no more discourse with Frankie but I will not apologise to him in any way shape or form. I said what I said and I meant it. I don’t swallow or crawl to anybody. You do as you see fit.

Hell will freeze before I offer apologies to the Frankies of this world.

The only way this gets beaten is Individual Accountability. No longer “police” in the media but the officer responsible, named. No longer the CPS but the actual official involved. These dodgy public servants are absolutely terrified of being singled out. And only the media – on and offline – can shame them and their behaviour. As has started to happen – Hillsborough, Plebgate, Hackgate. I notice that many of the named and shamed subsequently end up in prison themselves.

Which has it’s pro’s & con’s – police officers now are generally given targets, and the dimmer or more ruthless the officers will do things the better offices won’t, but they all to a man (or woman) under pressure to deliver up a certain number of arrests, cautions etc. This started over 20 years ago whilst my Dad was still in Blunderside Police – he told his bosses he ‘was there to prosecute, not to persecute’ which went down like a lead balloon as you can imagine. I’ve a feeling Individual Accountability will amount more to Individual Scapegoats, and that the more honourable would become fall guys for the ruthless target-hitters. The best case scenario would the dodgy ones wreaking absolute havoc before finally being ‘brought to account’. All in the name of ‘targets’.

I would tend to agree. “Hillsborough” bothers me. The “Police” were held responsible for failures when it happened, in the original Inquiry. This recent revival all seems based around some notion that because The Sun printed a pack of lies later, this meant the UK State had maintained these lies. That was never true. Nobody believed The Sun. Not even The journalists I’ll be bound. We also knew that a pertinent problem was that human beings were being herded into steel cages like cattle, and that if there had not been cages the mistakes of the police would never have had the consequences that transpired. Imagine the Bradford Fire with Enclosures.

Oddly enough, the attempts by The Sun to play some kind of dodgy Police Fed role may have been the first signs of those particular band of journo-brothers and the cops getting into some kind of mutual back-scratching mode. By 2003 Parliament was being told the cops were literally in the journalist’s pocket. And that Parliament just ignored the facts…. well, it was 2003 and there was a war they need to get on.

Am I being a bit thick here; but when Habeas Corpus kicks in can’t you simply tell them to charge you or let you go? You don’t have to accept police bail. They cannot remand you if they thought you harmless enough to have bail. So why am I wrong in thinking all this? I would really like to know the legal position because it simply cannot be this simple.

It actually is very nearly this simple, BUT with a few caveats: You must be brought before a court within a certain time (the habeus corpus bit, nowadays I think they handle it slightly differently) Your SOLICITOR !!!! will argue that there is no case to be answered and that you should be released forthwith, the police will make you out to be the biggest gangster since Capone. The police can ask for you to be remanded in custody (banged up) ubtil trial but unless they can show a really serious charge, danger of you absconding , threatening witnesses or re-offending, you will likely get court bail. Bail may be on your own recognisance, you basically go off and appear for the trial if any, or it may be conditional; you may have to post a sum of money, surrender a passport or sign in at a police station at certain intervals. You may be subject to a curfew, forbidden certain places or contact with certain people, but generally they cannot simply make life hard for you. You do NOT have to accept the conditions, you can tell them to stuff it, go on remand (sit in a cell) and apply for a speedy trial.

Hi Robert, I wish I had known these things when the bizzies came calling on me. They came mob handed in an ARV, presumably for maximum effect on the neighbours. Unfortunately for them our nearest neighbour is well out of sight from my home. Anyway they arrested me and within three minutes whipped me away to a police station 25 miles away, leaving my wife (in her eighties) in her nightdress and no female police officers in the group. They then went through many years of files from work that I had done for the police. I assumed that it was all a mistake and the truth would soon clear everything up. I was wrong! I refused police bail but was persuaded to sign a mini electronic tablet “to say that I had been told the bail terms”. Wrong again! I was eventually released in the small hours and determined to start walking home. Happily after a mile or so I found an all night garage that let me make a phone call to my wife (I had no money and no phone). I carried on walking and within half an hour or so my son appeared and took me home. I then spent nine months on bail with conditions preventing me from working or contacting my co-accused. The case was eventually NFA’d when a contempt of court action was begun against the Chief Constable. I spent many years working FOR the police and even training them in forensics (at no charge) but when I took on defence cases I was suddenly a pariah. Happily my wife and I were both strong enough to withstand the pressure but my opinion of the police and CPS is unlikely to ever recover. I completely agree with all the points you made – and I would add DON’T TRUST ANYONE! Exercise your right to silence and don’t answer ANY questions without the presence of a reliable solicitor. Ignore any crap about silence being detrimental to your case; until you are charged and have seen ALL of their evidence how can you reply?

These days if a policeman told me my name I would demand documentary proof, in triplicate, and a signed statement from my parents and the midwife before accepting it.

Interesting. Very similar to that neurologist woman who is being I think abused by the police because she changed her mind about shaken baby syndrome and started acting as expert witness for the parents and got quite a few off the charges. the police reported her to the GMC which is holding a kangaroo court. What pisses me off is that the police just want a result and not the truth or an innocent released but probably an innocent found guilty. This really really makes me very angry.

Myself and another spent over three years on police bail (I should add for a completely different charge to the cases named in Anna’s piece).

I felt then, and still do, that the police use bail as a form of punishment and control, even though suspects are supposed to be considered innocent. Our charges (crim dam) consisted of only circumstantial evidence and, in the grand scheme of things, weren’t particularly serious. The routine was arrest> rebail> house/workplace raid > rebail >raid >rebail. Each time I was rebailed took 10 or 20 minutes off of the 24 hours allowed. The 24 hours finished and they got an extension.

The cases were dropped after repeat complaints to IPCC, abuse of power and harrasment. Spending so long on bail and repeat raids caused me far more upset and trauma than any possible sentence could have.

This is true – in reality a persons punishment/incarceration begins the moment they are arrested. DLT was not allowed to broadcast or be seen on our TV screen (other than the News of course) from the minute The Met came a-calling (with half of Fleet Street waiting for them in a nearby pub car park) – so his two suspended is in reality four years, and for what? A case happening “up North” right now (and set to continue for months) involves a man on bail for a year whilst the police trawled through his emails, phone contacts, facebook friends etc inviting people to make a complaint about him; re-arrested and held for days when he was charged – and then seeing the amount of charges he was facing almost double whilst he was awaiting trial. In my opinion, he’s already served two years.

I can’t help wonder just how much the millions spent on Operation Yewtree and the time involved by the CPS chasing aging celebrities over possible offenses could have been better spent sorting out the actual abuse of underage girls in Rochdale and the surrounding area. It is almost as if the CPS can’t/won’t go there for some reason – I wonder why, is it too big a can of worms for them to open?

The aim isn’t ‘child protection’ though – the aim is the obliteration of the Rule of Law, to reach a position were the masses are clamouring for arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction and branding without evidence. I understand the train is almost arriving at that station.

The ‘Old Bill’ have three main sources of evidence don’t they: physical, as in forensic; verbal account from an eye witness and finally admission from suspect. By definition, sexual offences have pretty much lost any chance of recovering physical evidence within a very short time. Again by definition, eye witness accounts are rare in sexual offences even where the parties are known to each other which, generally leaves admissions by the suspect. Since the PACE Act of1984 I imagine these are rare unless the suspect is overwhelmed by the strength of the first two.

So given the likely lack of the first two sources in historic cases, why do they pursue these cases? Only my logic but could it be because owing to political correctness and the mantra that the victim must always be believed (regardless of everything else) police must investigate or be pilloried for it, even though an objective short analysis should result in the decision that “this is going nowhere, forget it.”

Mix in the obsession that police are only doing their job if they achieve so many arrests and the pretense that the CPS are more interested in justice than cost per, therefore not performance orientated and I should think all this could have been predicted.

Ivan… you nailed it. There’s real systematic abuse on a huge scale… and our Common Purpose schooled civil servants wont go near it, to the extent that I think there’s a prima facie case of malfeasance in public office to be answered.

It’s almost as if Yewtree was enacted, so that when Rotherham et al were brought up, it could be countered by “well what about Jimmy Saville” as if that negates the issue.

It’s certainly true that distraction has gone into overdrive. The very, very few white victims of the grooming gangs have been used to claim “It’s not about race” – which in itself is a distraction because I suspect most of us think it’s really about culture/religion rather than race per se. The numerous Islamic grooming gang trials and investigations around the country are played down – or not even mentioned by the likes of The Guardian. Very conveniently a handful of individual white accused came to trial at the same time in Derby so that they could be portrayed as a non-Islam grooming gang – even though there was no evidence that they acted in concert.

I don’t think for a second that Savile was fingered solely as an early distraction but cause celebres which really become huge tend to serve multiple agendas for multiple people and this aspect was certainly useful to the fans of medieval cults. Look at any forum when Islamic grooming comes up – there will almost always be someone who points to the Yewtree cases as some sort of non-Muslim equivalent.

One does wonder whether the trend towards outsourcing government responsibilities to unaccountable (in the electoral sense) bodies is starting to backfire a bit. There are many Quangos that start out with all good intent, then seem slowly to morph into a rather nasty dictatorial mode. The CPS are one example, another would be the Environment Agency, the actions of which on the Somerset Levels were only brought to heel after serious damage to many livelihoods. HMRC is hardly a bastion of accuracy, dispatch and fairness in it’s dealings with the public, either.

Maybe it’s time for a proper ‘bonfire of the Quangos’; or at the very least making the senior figures directly accountable through the ballot box, as has already been done with Police Commissioners. Bureaucrats seemingly unsackable by either the public they serve or their supposed political masters will tend to abuse their power.

(2) People have talked of waiving anonymity for accusers and/or permitting anonymity for accused. I do not support either of these proposals. Perhaps anonymity for suspects until charging would be reasonable?

(3) Statute of limitations – another vexed question. I propose a statute of limitations of say 20 years, but there should be a discretionary ability for police to waive in most serious cases.